The Water Resources Department (department) appeals a judgment
awarding attorney fees to petitioners under ORS 183.497. Petitioners requested review
of the department's order in other than a contested case. The trial court granted
petitioners' motion for summary judgment and remanded the matter to the department for
a contested case hearing. The department first argues that the remand was not "in favor"
of petitioners and second argues that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to
petitioners under ORS 183.497(1)(a) or ORS 183.497(1)(b). While we disagree with the
department's first argument, the record is inadequate for appellate review of whether
petitioners were entitled to an award of attorney fees under ORS 183.497(1)(a), ORS
183.497(1)(b), or both. We, therefore, vacate the award and remand the matter to the
trial court to make an adequate record that identifies the statutory basis for an award of
fees and that is otherwise consistent with McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc., 327 Or
84, 957 P2d 1200, on recons, 327 Or 185, 957 P2d 1200 (1998). We otherwise affirm.

The department appeals only the award of attorney fees and does not
contest the grant of summary judgment in petitioners' favor. Therefore, we recite only
the relevant facts.

Petitioner filed an application to transfer two ground water right certificates
pursuant to ORS 540.530.(1) Under that statute, a transfer of a water right is allowable
only if the transfer will not result in injury to an existing water right. Notice of those
proposed transfers was published, and the department received one protest from Norma
Eid, who expressed her concern that the transfer might cause substantial interference
with her existing rights. Under ORS 540.520(6), "whenever a timely protest is filed
* * * the department shall hold a hearing on the matter" pursuant to contested case
procedures. The department did not schedule a contested case hearing. Rather, it
continued to study the effects of the transfer and acknowledged "that predicting
interference between wells is very difficult. It is something that requires actual use to
demonstrate." The department's hydrogeologist undertook an exhaustive study and
concluded that he could not make a further determination as to injury "short of having
the well installed and the pumps turned on." The department found that:

"No specific injury which may be caused by the approval of this transfer
application has been identified. However, the potential for interference
may exist. The potential for injury, if it should occur, may be eliminated by
regulation of the interfering well. Therefore, the transfer application may
be approved provided it contains a condition requiring the regulation of
any well authorized by this transfer which causes interference with an
existing well, existing at the time this transfer application is approved,
appropriating water under an existing right, and that interference is a result
of the approved change."

It added Condition 5 to address that concern:

"If substantial or undue interference with an existing well used under an
existing right, including existing exempt uses, occurs, and such interference
can be shown to the satisfaction of the Department to result from the
change in the way the water right is exercised as authorized herein, the use
of water from the well authorized by this transfer causing the interference
shall be regulated to mitigate the interference."

As a direct result of appending that condition, Eid withdrew her protest. The department
informed petitioners of the new condition, petitioners did not object, and a final order
was issued. Petitioners stipulated that the order was in other than a contested case.

Petitioners sought review of the order in other than contested case under
ORS 183.484 in the circuit court. Petitioners and the department filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. Petitioners alleged that the order had been issued unlawfully only
because the condition impermissibly altered petitioners' priority in the subject water
rights. They requested that the order be set aside, modified, or remanded to the
department on that narrow basis. Petitioners also sought an award of reasonable attorney
fees. The trial court granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment but based its
judgment on a broader reason not asserted by petitioners. The trial court remanded the
matter, on the department's urging, to the department for the scheduling of a contested
case hearing. In particular, the court orally found:

"It is my view, to probably the satisfaction of no one, that the purpose of
the [department] is to make precisely the determination that they didn't
make; that they're supposed to make [the finding that the transfer would
result in no injury to existing water rights]. That they do that by having a
contested case hearing. They don't do that by negotiating with all the
parties and imposing a condition which effectively abrogates its
responsibility for making a decision."

Thus, the trial court did not reach petitioners' arguments regarding condition five because
it found more fundamental substantive and procedural problems with the order: (1) that
condition five, itself, abrogated the department's statutory duty to make a "no
impairment" finding; and (2) that that abrogation of duty was further compounded by the
lack of a contested case hearing in which such a finding was supposed to be made. The
court then awarded petitioners $7,625.25 in attorney fees and costs, approximately half
of petitioners' request. The court did not explain its decision regarding the award of
attorney fees.

On appeal, the department does not seek review of the merits; thus, we accept the court's oral findings. The department
seeks review only of the trial court's award of attorney fees. ORS 183.497(1)(a) provides
that on judicial review of a final order under ORS 183.484, the court "[m]ay, in its
discretion, allow a petitioner reasonable attorney fees and costs if the court finds in favor
of the petitioner." Under subsection (1)(b), the court shall award attorney fees

"if the court finds in favor of the petitioner and determines that the state
agency acted without a reasonable basis in fact or in law; but the court may
withhold all or part of the attorney fees from any allowance to a petitioner
if the court finds that the state agency has proved that its action was
substantially justified or that special circumstances exist that make the
allowance of all or part of the attorney fees unjust." ORS 183.497(1)(b).

The department argues that the trial court's judgment was, as a matter of
law, not a judgment "in favor" of petitioners. The department also argues that the court
abused its discretion in awarding fees under ORS 183.497(1)(a) and that a mandatory fee
award under subsection (1)(b) is not supported by the record. Because the record does
not permit adequate appellate review of the department's latter two arguments, we
address only the department's first argument. We review whether the trial court's
judgment was "in favor" of petitioners by ascertaining the legislature's intent in using that
phrase. We ultimately conclude that the trial court's judgment was "in favor" of
petitioners.

"the decision being reviewed was reversed, reversed and remanded or
modified in some manner favorable to the petitioner. Something more is
involved, however. We reverse and remand (or even reverse outright) a
portion of an agency decision under the broadest possible range of
circumstances. Sometimes the result is complete vindication of the
petitioner. See, e.g., Van Gordon v. Ore. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 52
Or App 749, 629 P2d 848 (1981). On the other hand, sometimes the result
merely postpones petitioner's ultimate loss. See, e.g., Donnell v. Eastern
Ore. State College, 59 Or App 246, 650 P2d 1012 (1982), after remand
affirmed without opinion 64 Or App 70, 668 P2d 423 (1983). Between
these two poles lies a range of other possibilities. We hold that, in order
for a decision to qualify as being 'in favor of the petitioner' under ORS
183.497, it must be a more than de minimus victory: some significant
portion of the order petitioner challenges must be altered or invalidated in a
manner which is (or appears ultimately likely to be) to the petitioner's
benefit." Id. at 282-83.

The department argues that petitioners' victory at the trial court was only
temporary, and thus de minimus, because, it argues, the victory was merely procedural
and did not vindicate petitioners' claims on the merits. We have consistently held that
"complete vindication is not required." Ponderosa Inn, Inc. v. Employment Div., 64 Or
App 443, 446, 668 P2d 1233, rev den 296 Or 120, 672 P2d 1193 (1983). We have also
avoided characterizing what constitutes a vindication of someone's rights by merely
labeling whether a judgment is a "procedural" or "substantive" victory.

In any event, this case concerns a judgment that is partly substantive and
partly procedural. The record reveals that the trial court found that the department
abdicated an unambiguous, nondiscretionary statutory duty to make a "no impairment
finding" and violated a separate unambiguous, nondiscretionary statutory duty to conduct
a contested case hearing whenever a protest is filed. Again, we do not comment on the
correctness of those rulings but assess whether they are "in favor" of petitioners.

While this case is unusual, we think that it meets the threshold. There is no
doubt that the victory is more than a mere technicality and that the agency will be
required fundamentally to reassess its "no impairment" finding through the contested
case procedure. See Donnell v. Eastern Ore. State College, 64 Or App 271, 274, 668
P2d 423, rev den 296 Or 120, 672 P2d 1193 (1983) (if agency mistakes are minor or
seem unlikely to affect the eventual outcome of the matter on remand, discretion
counsels us to rarely award fees). However, that reassessment may ultimately work to
the disadvantage of the petitioners' transfer request. The evidence, from apparently
exhaustive studies, suggested that the department may not be able to determine
definitively before the transfer, whether the transfer will impair existing ground water
rights. The department, in a self-explained effort to accommodate the transfer and to
protect against any actual impairment, added condition five as a practical solution to its
dilemma. On remand in a contested case hearing, it is uncertain whether petitioners will
be able to provide any additional information on this matter that would allow the
department to make a pretransfer determination in petitioners' favor regarding the
transfer request. Indeed, there are many possible outcomes from the contested case
hearing that may be more or less beneficial to petitioners' transfer request.

The obvious aim of petitioners is to secure a transfer that does not affect
the priority of their water rights. That is also required by the statute. ORS 540.530.
Thus, securing a transfer without condition five would certainly be beneficial to
petitioners; however, we cannot say that approving the transfer would necessarily be so,
or that disapproving the transfer would necessarily be detrimental. Water rights priorities
are important interests. It may be preferable to petitioners to retain the priority of their
water rights rather than to effect the transfer of the water right; thus if the only way the
department can make a no impairment finding is by, in fact, affecting petitioners' water
right priorities, petitioners may then oppose the transfer. In that case, an order denying
the transfer would be beneficial to petitioners. In fact, any order that complies with the
statutory requirement that the transfer not affect petitioners' water right priorities is also
beneficial to petitioners' concerns about the order.

In any event, the trial court's broad ruling invalidating the condition also
vindicated petitioners' specific concern. Petitioners argued that the department, in
making its no impairment finding, could not attach conditions that affected the priority of
their water rights. The trial court ruled that the department could not attach those
conditions because the department abrogated its duty to make a no impairment finding.
Thus, the trial court invalided those conditions, and petitioners are assured that the
department is unable to regulate water wells in the fashion that petitioners claim affect
the priority of their water rights. In addition, in a contested case hearing to consider
protests regarding the impairment of existing rights, petitioners can fully develop their
concerns regarding the priority of their water rights with respect to any other conditions
proposed by the department in making a no impairment finding.

Thus, we conclude that the necessary predicates are met for a verdict "in
favor" of petitioners: (1) the fundamental, rather than merely technical, nature of the
remand; (2) the vindication, in fact, of petitioners' substantive arguments regarding the
condition and the benefit to petitioners of participation in the contested case hearing; (3)
the likelihood that the eventual outcome regarding petitioners' concerns with the order
will be beneficial, even if it may result in an order denying the transfer request; and (4)
the broader policy concerns of the agency's obvious abrogation of unambiguous,
nondiscretionary statutory duties. Those factors demonstrate that the portion of the order
that petitioner challenged has been invalidated, that the department is required to reassess
that portion in a fundamental way, both substantively and procedurally, and that such
reassessment will likely be beneficial to petitioners' concerns regarding the order.

2. In 1985, the legislature combined and altered the attorney fee provisions
of former ORS 183.495 and former ORS 183.497 into the current version of ORS
183.497. Or Laws 1985, ch 757, §§ 5, 7. The relevant issue we examined in Johnson,
however, interpreted language identical to the current version.